The Global Warmists' Last Line Of Defense: The Warming Must Be In The Bermuda Triangle

There are 49 comments on the
The Heartland Institute
story from Apr 27, 2013, titled The Global Warmists' Last Line Of Defense: The Warming Must Be In The Bermuda Triangle.
In it, The Heartland Institute reports that:

Global warming activists have finally come up with a last line of defense they know nobody will able to prove wrong: The missing global warming is in the Bermuda Triangle.

The global warming activists, of course, do their best to make their Bermuda Triangle defense sound scientific. The paper claims all this phantom global warming really can directly bypass the atmosphere and the upper ocean if winds start blowing strangely enough and strongly enough to bury the warming deep in the ocean. Thankfully, we can spare ourselves the dizzying asserted logic of such claims by examining recent global sea surface wind data. As Bermuda Triangle-busting science would have it, "NASA" satellite instruments show global sea surface wind speeds have declined rather than increased during the past decade.

There you have it folks it is after all the B.S scientific science fiction scare tactics to extract more tax dollars from the real tax payers. See "NASA" said it best.

Hy heartless ... Callendar didn't foresee just how much fossil fuels we would be burning over the next 75 years and what kind of negative effects we could produce with this gigantic chemical experiment with our planet's atmosphere by pumping billions of tons of carbon into it.

Money wasted?

"Two-thirds of a trillion" dollars were spent last year alone in fossil-fuels exploration when only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future.

What's really sad, is the oceans do hold heat. They always have held heat. The sun produces the heat and the oceans absorb it.

There is a lag time between solar activity and climate, about 10 years.

Why didn't the AGW scientists know this?

The energy absorbed by the oceans will show up as climate about 10 years later. Why is it colder today, because the sun went into a very low period starting in 2003. What year is it today? 2013.

Why didn't the AGW scientists build the lag time into their sensitivity equation?

Of course there's heat in the oceans. It's always been there. If it's THE missing heat, it's only missing because the scientist still don't know everything they need to know about how climate works and therefore can't create an equation that correctly reflects our current conditions.

It's science, we expect wrong turns and dead ends. What we don't expect is for our scientists to run up against a wall and refuse to see the wall.

Scientists believe warming is in the deep ocean because the observations say it is and there is a plausible mechanism for it getting there.

Abstract

[1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niņo events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700&#8201;m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700&#8201;m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

Of course there's heat in the oceans. It's always been there. If it's THE missing heat, it's only missing because the scientist still don't know everything they need to know about how climate works and therefore can't create an equation that correctly reflects our current conditions.It's science, we expect wrong turns and dead ends. What we don't expect is for our scientists to run up against a wall and refuse to see the wall.

The heat was "missing" because we have satellite observations of the amount of energy coming in to the Earth and the amount going out (less now due to CO2).

The warming observed on the Earth did not match the difference.

A very simple equation.

With warming now confirmed in the deep ocean the equation is balanced: extra energy coming in equals warming observed.

The observations still say that more energy is coming in than going out because of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, so expect to see continued warming in the future.

The real wall is the wall of reality that denial is inevitably going to crash into: new record temperatures over the next few years.

<quoted text>The heat was "missing" because we have satellite observations of the amount of energy coming in to the Earth and the amount going out (less now due to CO2).The warming observed on the Earth did not match the difference.A very simple equation.With warming now confirmed in the deep ocean the equation is balanced: extra energy coming in equals warming observed.The observations still say that more energy is coming in than going out because of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, so expect to see continued warming in the future.The real wall is the wall of reality that denial is inevitably going to crash into: new record temperatures over the next few years.

Well I didn't expect you to understand, but I'll try one more time.

The energy the sun produces on Tuesday, does not automatically leave the earth's system on Wednesday. It doesn't all leave on Thursday either, or even in the same month or the same year.

So what part of the energy balance equation addresses the lag time in distribution of solar energy throughout the earth's system?

<quoted text>Try again, there is no solar constant. To use a variable in the equation that is incorrect makes the equation wrong.

The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU)(roughly the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth). When solar irradiance is measured on the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere,[1]

<quoted text>You don't like "Patronising little twerp"? I didn't ask for you to "take notice". You don't add anything to the discussion that joe blow couldn't find on Skeptical Science, so of what value are you?

Discussion?

LOL.

It's not a discussion.

It's you posting your crackpot ideas.

Me pointing out that they have no basis in science.

You patronising me.

Me insulting you.

Let's remind ourselves that you have no scientific education, no scientific training and no scientific experience.

Just the curious arrogance of endless internet amateur scientists who think their crackpot theories have overturned the scientific consensus.

At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.

<quoted text>Discussion?LOL.It's not a discussion.It's you posting your crackpot ideas.Me pointing out that they have no basis in science.You patronising me.Me insulting you.Let's remind ourselves that you have no scientific education, no scientific training and no scientific experience.Just the curious arrogance of endless internet amateur scientists who think their crackpot theories have overturned the scientific consensus.

Another one who uses the term "scientific consensus", the backbone of all global warming histeria. Consensus is not science. This is not to say that consensus cannot be useful, but it must be tempered with an open mind, which has been utterly lost to the global warming alarmist.

<quoted text>Discussion?LOL.It's not a discussion.It's you posting your crackpot ideas.Me pointing out that they have no basis in science.You patronising me.Me insulting you.Let's remind ourselves that you have no scientific education, no scientific training and no scientific experience.Just the curious arrogance of endless internet amateur scientists who think their crackpot theories have overturned the scientific consensus.

"Scientific consensus" an oxymoron.

In science, there's evidence and no evidence, not consensus.

Science doesn't care how many people are in error, it only considers the one that can provide evidence that can be replicated by independent testing.

And most of all, science takes work. Science requires the individual seeking knowledge or attempting to 'prove' something to do a lot of work.

One way to do scientific work for the individual who is seeking knowledge, is to READ THE MATERIAL.

To up your game, you might consider reading your posted references before you post. It would save you all those embarassing moments when I point out what you posted doesn't support your argument.

In Science, there's always another chance to get it right, just READ IT.

toxic topix AGW deniers love to read the first page of their 5th grade science books, to demean science & mathematics. Because toxic topix AGW deniers couldn't understand anything after the first page, they could pursue science further. Yeah, no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc were earned for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Of course, very very few toxic topix AGW deniers have science or mathematics degrees.

<quoted text>Another one who uses the term "scientific consensus", the backbone of all global warming histeria. Consensus is not science. This is not to say that consensus cannot be useful, but it must be tempered with an open mind, which has been utterly lost to the global warming alarmist."No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" - Albert Einstein -

An open mind is not what's needed when looking at misinformation from Heartland.

What's needed is some scepticism.

The consensus arises from the weight of the evidence, looked at by people who understand it, which is why ever scientific academy has said that warming is real and we are responsible- hardly hysteria.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.